An MVP isn’t about building less, it’s about learning sooner. We start from whichever assumption carries the most risk for your business and build exactly enough to test it, with real users, not in a meeting.
Most MVP projects fail the same way: a smaller version of the whole product gets built, with every feature half-finished. The result is something nobody wants to use, and no answer comes back — because the user wasn’t rejecting the idea, they were rejecting a half-built thing.
An MVP that works is a complete solution to one narrow problem. It doesn’t start from “what shall we build” but from “which of our assumptions is most expensive if it’s wrong”. Once that assumption is identified, you can usually build something far smaller than originally planned — and get the same answer in weeks.
Not every MVP is software. The cheapest experiment that gives a correct answer is always the best one — and sometimes that means building nothing at all. We go through these options with you before proposing any development.
A page describing the product as though it existed, measuring how many sign up. It answers whether the problem hurts enough — and costs days rather than months.
The service is delivered to the first customers by hand, with no software at all. It sounds inefficient, but it teaches more about the process than any interview — and shows exactly what is worth automating.
The user sees a finished product, but a person does the work behind it. The experience is real; the infrastructure isn’t. Especially useful when the automation is the expensive part.
A narrow product taken all the way. The most common right answer: one thing that genuinely works tells you more than ten that half work.
The product is assembled from existing services — forms, automation tools, spreadsheets — with no code of your own. A fast way to test an idea that a real system can replace later.
The most honest experiment: will anyone pay. Stated intent is a weak signal; a paid invoice is a strong one. We build what that needs and nothing beyond it.
For an MVP we pick technology that is familiar and boring. Speed comes from limiting scope rather than from a novel tool — and if the product proves out, you don’t want to discover in six months that the foundation has to be replaced.
The point of an MVP isn’t a product. The point is a decision you can make from evidence — and these four are what that decision rests on.
Not a prototype or a deck, but something a person outside your organisation actually uses.
The metrics are agreed before anything is built; otherwise everyone reads the result the way that suits them.
Three possible answers — continue, pivot or stop — and all three are good outcomes.
If the answer is continue, you don’t want to start from zero — nor to inherit code nobody dares touch.
MVPs get bought in three ways, and which fits depends on what you already have. With no team in place we cover the whole thing: discovery, design, development and launch. If you have a product manager and your own developers but not enough hands, we come in as extra capacity inside your process. And if you only need direction — whether this is a software project at all, and which experiment answers it most cheaply — that’s advisory work you can buy on its own, with no obligation to build anything.
When choosing a partner, two questions are worth asking. First: what would you do first? If the answer is “start developing” with no question about what is being tested, nobody is designing an experiment — they’re selling hours. Second: what happens if the MVP shows the idea doesn’t work? If there’s no agreed ending for that case, what you have is a project rather than a test.
The first question isn’t what to build but which wrong assumption costs most. That conversation often halves the scope.
If a landing page or a manual service answers the same question for less, we’ll recommend it — including when that means a smaller project for us.
Tests, CI and architecture are the same as on a larger project. What gets thrown away is features the data didn’t support, not the code.
Before we start we agree what gets measured and which number means continue and which means stop. Our interest isn’t in selling you a phase two.
Code, design files and cloud accounts are in your name from the first commit. An MVP must never be the reason you stay tied to us.
We are in Tallinn, in the same timezone and the same contractual framework. Data can stay entirely inside the EU.
An MVP is a complete solution to one narrow problem. An unfinished product is a partial solution to a broad one. The first can actually be used and learned from; the second can’t do either.
Not ours. The speed comes from limiting scope, not from sacrificing quality — tests, CI and architecture are the same as on a larger project. What gets thrown away is features the data didn’t support, not the code.
That’s a good outcome, and a cheaper one than learning the same thing a year later. You get a written summary of what the data showed and a recommendation to pivot or stop. Our interest isn’t in selling you a phase two.
So that your most expensive assumption gets tested before a year and a budget go into it. Every product idea rests on several: that the problem exists, that it hurts enough, that your solution fits, and that somebody will pay. Usually one of those is clearly riskier than the rest.
The MVP is built around that one. If the assumption holds, you have evidence to move forward with and to raise against. If it doesn’t, you know in weeks rather than months — and most of what you paid for is still usable.
The first working result arrives in two weeks. We don’t work for months in silence and show nothing until the end — the first sprint ends with something you can actually use, and the product grows from there in two-week steps whose contents you choose.
For a narrow MVP as a whole, it usually reaches real users within six weeks. Where the experiment needs no software at all — a landing page, a manually delivered service, or something assembled from existing tools — it’s a matter of days.
That holds only with a narrow scope. With ten features on the list it isn’t an MVP, and the honest number is months rather than weeks. We say so upfront rather than in the third sprint.
It depends what you’re testing. If the doubt is whether anyone cares about the problem, a landing page is enough. If the doubt is whether your solution actually works, it needs to be done by hand first — a manually delivered service teaches more about the process than any interview. If the only doubt is the automation, you can show users a finished interface with a person doing the work behind it for now.
If you already know the problem exists and the solution fits, and the question is usage, then the right answer is one feature built properly all the way. We walk through these in discovery and pick the cheapest one that gives a trustworthy answer.
Ask first what they would do first. If the answer is “start developing” with no question about what’s being tested and which number counts as success, nobody is designing an experiment — they’re selling hours. A good partner argues with your scope before pricing it.
Ask as well what happens if the MVP shows the idea doesn’t work. If there’s no agreed ending for that case, what you have is a project rather than a test. And ask who owns the code, the design files and the cloud accounts. The point of an MVP is to keep your options open; a partner who is a project to leave does exactly the opposite.
Describe your situation in a couple of sentences. We reply within one working day.